I'm with Jon Huntsman on Herman Cain. Gotta get lots more specific, Herman. Get the damn records, and let it all out. You're running for president and you can't be evasive. At FRS, we, of all people, appreciate the power of false allegations, but when you're evasive, it gives the claims credence.
And Joe Paterno, you're a legend, man. An icon in Happy Valley. The most successful big-time college football coach ever. Blah, blah, blah. And yes, Joe, you did report to your "superior" (that's the funny part -- that Joe acknowledges anyone at Penn State is his "superior") what you learned about Jerry Sandusky allegedly performing a sex act on a ten-year-old boy.
So tell us, Joe, when you learned that the only thing your "superior" did about it was to ban Sandusky from bringing little boys to the Penn State football building, you didn't do anything more? Seriously?! That was it?
And you say you did what you were supposed to do, Joe?
Let's get this straight. Someone who would have no motive to lie about this reported to you that he saw one of your former assistant coaches raping a little boy in your football facility. And you pat yourself on the back for reporting it to your "superior."
What a great guy you are, Joe. Kind of confirms what I've long thought about you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
A reprint of someone else's thoughts, or a cautionary example? Obviously not your typical reasoning.
Yes, my typical reasoning. It's actually more complex than my many detractors think.
What HAVE you long thought about Joe Pa?
Wow. Look at all this attention Herman Cain is getting.
Just like in the mainstream media.
”I'm with Jon Huntsman on Herman Cain. Gotta get lots more specific, Herman. Get the damn records, and let it all out. You're running for president and you can't be evasive.”
Herman Cain has apparently called for a news conference today (11/8), and it is apparently intended to specifically address the series of allegations against him; including this latest one, by a woman who was fired by the National Restaurant Board, and then never made any public mention of the supposed incident (which occurred after she was fired) until now. She claims she has nothing to gain, but she is being represented by Gloria Allred (of whom it has been said she won’t even drink your coffee unless there’s a substantial amount of money in it for her to do so), so it seems more probable that there is some serious money in the offing.
If I might, I’d like to add my two cents that this whole situation sure seems to men to be a very visible practical example of the so-called “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Herman Cain is NOT being tried in a court of law, but rather in the court of public opinion, wherein the only real goal is to convince people that “he sure seems guilty” even if no real credible evidence is ever shown to substantiate allegations.
I don’t know if Cain actually did harass some women, or if he is entirely innocent. The problem for him is that innuendo often carries as much weight in public opinion as does hard evidence. What we have is simply knowledge that two women received financial pay-offs (hush money) to quietly leave the organization that Herman Cain headed. We are supposed to simply believe that because he was in charge, and because there was a settlement, that if it is later claimed (by others, not the women who received the settlements) that it involved sexual harassment by Herman Cain, then it must be so.
Yet, it remains unclear if Cain himself was even aware of the women’s claims nr of the settlements negotiated with them (Cain, for his part, asserts that had he known that such settlements were being considered, would have wished to fight against the charges).
Of course, his claims, just like those against him seem as if they will remain unproven. It seems this will likely come down to nothing more than what people are willing to believe.
In that regard, given that it is basically a mere preponderance of the supposed evidence, while some may tend to see additional woman coming forth as an indication of his more probable guilt, I tend to see it as nothing but a “piling on” by women who perceive that there may some money in it for them, encouraged by those who’ve reasoned that more alleging victims will amount to more credibility of all of them (much like multiple mistresses rushing forward made it impossible to contain the Tiger Woods infidelity situation).
Again, I don’t have any idea if Cain is innocent or just a harasser who managed to pay-off enough people to hush-up his antics. My primary concern is that he is be tried, by the press and public under the same sort of preponderance of evidence standard that is being proposed that all accused men should be judged by. The obvious observation that there is no possible way for Cain to fully clear his name, regardless of the fact that he may be innocent, should serve as an ominous warning about what such a low standard of judgment portends for many ordinary “Joe’s” who may find themselves accused.
slw, I long for the day when the public holds accusers to a higher standard, when an accusation is not its own conviction.
My problem is this: if Cain is innocent, there is no way on earth he can fairly defend against this stale claim -- any alibi evidence that would prove his innocence (e.g., receipts showing he was out of town the day it allegedly happened, witnesses who dined with him, etc.) is almost certainly no longer available to him. He can't defend against these charges other than to say, "I didn't do it." Even still, the smoke won't go away. It is grossly unfair, assuming he is innocent.
If women are sexually assaulted, they need to come forward promptly. We need to stop tacitly encouraging them not to come forward (we do this in a multitude of ways). They have a public duty to come forward: first, to get a sexual assaulter off the street; and second, to give the presumptively innocent accused a fair opportunity to defend against the charges while they are fresh.
Do you know where you were on any given day in 1997? I sure don't. That's an eternity ago. I am sure that Herman Cain has grappled with that very problem over the past day. It's almost always insurmountable.
If a woman waits fourteen years to spring a sexual assault claim on a public figure, and then does it via a grandstanding feminist attorney, then that turns a potentially serious alleged crime into a circus. I long for the day when such efforts are dismissed out of hand.
MarkyMark, sorry if you are a Penn State guy, but I can't stand that whiny, little twerp, whose boorish behavior has, at times, been excused by powerful alumni. How many qualified assistants has that program lost because Joe refuses to retire? My guess is that this is going to decide that issue, once and for all.
Reminds me of the mainstream media, concentrating on the fucking idiot Herman Cain and ignoring Ron Paul, and wasting time constantly talking about sexual assault cases THAT HAVE NO BEARING AT ALL ON THE PUBLIC to get ratings. If I wanted meaningless drivel and distractions, I'd turn on the TV.
Sorry if I'm being harsh or an ass, I of course appreciate what you do here.
I don’t think the facts that the woman who gave a press conference yesterday with Gloria Alred besides her constituted sexual harassment. She was no longer employed by the same Association that Cain headed up at the time. Nor do I think they properly constituted sexual harassment, if true. She said that he started to touch her leg under her skirt. She also said that the moment she strongly objected he stopped. He was trying to get her to trade his finding her a job in return for sex apparently. I’m not much of a fan of Cain but I also think this was a pretty trivial matter.
I’m sick of leaning so far in women’s direction. They’re really not that fragile.
Hell I don’t even think that much and no more, without the quid pro quo part of it, should properly be sexual harassment even if she was an employee working under him – if it only occurred once and he stopped the moment she showed it was clearly unwanted.
"Do you know where you were on any given day in 1997?" Very tricky misleading question.
The DAY of occurrence is much less important than the EVENT itself. Is that hard to grasp?
"Very tricky misleading question. The DAY of occurrence is much less important than the EVENT itself. Is that hard to grasp?"
Please don't bring that self-righteous dishonesty here. You damn well know that I understand this better than you do. Let me make this simple enough even for you to understand: assuming he's innocent (and I know that's something you simply won't do), the ONLY thing he can say is, "I didn't do it." Big help to an innocent man -- actually, it's pretty much no help to someone in Herman's position. Even if she pinpointed a date when it allegedly occurred -- say, October 31, 1997 -- he would not be able to refute it with alibi evidence. That's because the claim so damn old. Because she was embarrassed back then to bring the claim (but for reasons that are unfathomable, she's NOT too embarrassed now to be in the center ring of one of the great media circuses of the century).
Is that hard to grasp? Go troll somewhere else.
Archivist,
I'm not a PSU guy. I never attended PSU; I've never even visited the campus. That said, I do live in Penn State country now; it's all blue & white (PS colors) where I live now. In light of recent events, you said that recent events and Joe Pa's response confirmed what you'd long thought about him. Since I couldn't recall reading ANYTHING about Joe Pa @ FRS, I asked the question.
All I'll say is this: it's a SHAME that Joe Pa has to go out this way. After building one of the most successful, cleanest collegiate athletic programs in American sports; after putting PSU on the map; after all the good Joe Pa has done; this tarnishes what had been a sterling legacy and reputation.
MarkyMark
Post a Comment